What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows?

Below is the controversial anti-Obama commercial that CNN and FOX will not broadcast. It is produced by a group called American Issues Project. The Obama campaign, in fact, has made an effort to make sure that it is not broadcast anywhere. In the ad, Senator Obama is linked to a friend of his, Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Weather Underground, a group that engaged in terrorist activities in the 1970s including the setting of bombs at the Pentagon and the U. S. Capital. Ayers has shown no remorse. In a September 11, 2001 New York Times article, Ayers says, "''I don't regret setting bombs... I feel we didn't do enough.''

I'm not sure what to think of all this. Having been a victim of guilt by association rhetoric myself, I have a visceral dislike for these sorts of attacks, even if they happen to target people with whom I disagree politically. On the other hand, what would we think if the shoe were on the other foot? For example, imagine if Senator McCain had worked closely and is friends with a leader of the Klu Klux Klan who had burned crosses on the lawns of African-American citizens but has not done so for over three decades. Suppose also that Senator McCain said that the Klan leader is "respectable," even if the Klan leader is belligerently unrepentant, opining on occasion that he wished that he had burned more crosses!

What do you think?

Comments (14)

I think that one of the issues here is that Obama has such a short resume, that there is little information or precedent with from which to learn about him. Thus, we are relegated to figuring out who his pastor was, or who's house he launched his first campaign from, etc., in an effort to determine where he really stands.

Is this TV ad factually accurate? While guilt by association can be an unfair tactic if the particulars do not support it, if the charges are specific and documented, then they should receive attention until refuted factually. I cannot say for sure if that has been done but it does not appear to be so. I would like to see both a more partisan campaign and a more civil one. Those two poles should be polarizing as the conservative and liberal movements ARE different even if the pros and pols in the GOP and Dems are sometimes more alike than different. I understand pundits and intellectuals love ambiguity, nuance, and complexities but I simply want to know what side are you on.

Well, you know, two sets of rules, one for the left, another for the right. Lefties believe in free speech so long as they're the only ones speaking.

It is prudent to hold relevant the totality of Obama, as opposed to merely an association with Ayers.

In the 'totality,' we have a somewhat disgruntled and unusual mother, Ayers, a CPUSA member in Hawaii, Wright, Pfleger, Reczko & Co., and a voting record (of sorts) in Illinois and Washington--plus tangential associations with other significant dissenters who are not entirely wholesome in their dissent.

In addition, the horrendous double-cross he pulled to become an Illinois Senator, and the low-tricks he used against the Clintons deserve examination.

It's one thing to have one (or two) rotten acquaintances--we all do. It's another thing entirely to have (and maintain) several of them.

This image would be far funnier, if it weren't so terrifyingly a possibility:

http://causa-nostrae-laetitiae.blogspot.com/2008/08/future-of-choice.html

If the video account can't be trusted with certainty, would this have more weight?

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

Dr. Beckwith,

On the other hand, what would we think if the shoe were on the other foot?

Hello???

Even though this example isn't quite as serious as the situation described in your post; however, how about McCain's association with the notorious Anti-Catholic John Hagee?

The very one who's often described the Catholic Church as "The Great Whore" and a "False Cult System".

And, yet, McCain continued to acknowledge Hagee's endorsement through it all.

Like I said in other posts, in the upcoming national election, I only go as far so as to vote against Obama; but as far as McCain and his policies go (in particular, his economic ones), they're not all they're cracked up to be; let alone considering the company he keeps.

Mr Beckwith, to answer your question on a McCain/KKK thought; I'd think quite a bit about if the former KKK type said he wishes he had done more, if there was no sign of repentance, and if McCain or his campaign engaged in the sort of hysterical vitriol directed at the unfortunate radio host who dared give Stanley Kurtz, working on the Ayers story, an interview.

But my respect for McCain would really crash dive if he or a campaign staffer was invited to appear on the same program and refused.

If anyone's interested, I just read that McCain's running mate is pro-life--no name as yet, but with so a short a list...

The Weathermen were absolutely nothing like the KKK. The Weathermen were extremists, yes, but their actions had a utopian dream behind them. The KKK were, and are, nothing but little balls of pointless hatred.

Mike, did the Weathermen set off utopian bombs , the kind that spread love ?

If anyone's interested, I just read that McCain's running mate is pro-life--no name as yet, but with so a short a list...

It's Sarah Palin, who is actually Pro-Life.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

The Weathermen were absolutely nothing like the KKK. The Weathermen were extremists, yes, but their actions had a utopian dream behind them. The KKK were, and are, nothing but little balls of pointless hatred.

No, their hatred had a definite point.

When a man runs for this highest office his life becomes an open book and it would be naive for Obama to have assumed that the issue of his 15 or 20 year relationships with Ayers and Wright would not come up.

So even if we give him absolute benefit of doubt and hold that he is not guilty by association, he is in fact found lacking in judgement by his failure to have neutralized the impact up front.

If Obama, once confronted, had just thrown out the dates and times of his x number of meetings with Ayers and said "So what, we were giving money to the poor," all would be well today.

Instead he displayed a glaring lack of judgement by vigorously attempting to shut the discussion down.

A politician who lacks unsavory association does not exist, but the United States cannot afford a naive President who lacks judgement.


Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.